I'm finally getting to run a game of The One Ring this coming weekend and my players have been creating characters. A question has come up which I though I would pitch to those who have been running the game and have some experience.

One of my players is playing a Beorning with Beast Lore and Enemy Lore - Spiders, he has asked whether either of these could be invoked when he should make a Battle roll for Combat Advantage when facing such foes.

Under Automatic Action (Adventurer's Book page 95) it does state:

Obviously he would only be able to achieve an ordinary success but if his Battle skill is low this would seem to be a winning idea.

So is this "allowed" by the rules?

In a similar vein could you use Mountaineer to succeed at a Travel roll when journeying through suitable terrain? How about Hardy for any journey roll?

I'd allow it for the Battle roll.

For Journey, I've been allowing Hardy rolls to gain AP on Fatigue tests, but no one has tried the auto-success thing, yet. If it became an issue, I would nix it or limit it to once a leg.

Of course, I've started using the revised Journey rolls, so I'd only allow Hardy on the "everyone rolls" portion, and not on the role based ... um ... roll (Hardy doesn't make you a better Hunter, for example).

I'll concur with the previous post.

Something to keep in mind is to expect the player invoking the trait to actually narrate and explain how that trait plays a role in aiding him succeed.

Invoke = to speak. Thus invoking a trait is technically speaking to describe how the trait makes him better than any other given individual.

Imagining how the trait's description synergizes with a given test/check, is the primary fun of such rules in the game.

The Hardy trait has been discussed a great deal as being one of those easily over-used. Perhaps spending some time discussing its use in the game with the player to determine an agreeable consensus on just how and how often it should allow an auto travel check. That being said, again i agree with the previous post - only useful on those checks done universally and not just a specific role's test.

This is an area of the rules which, whilst refreshingly different compared to other RPGs, is also quite vague in how is should be used, and potentially problematic.

The few examples in the rules talk about characters automatically finding something by invoking "Keen-Eyed" rather than having to make a "Search" test, or invoking "Cautious" to get a chance to make an "Awareness" test when they would normally have no chance at all. Another example has a Hobbit invoke "Smoking" to sneak out of a room unnoticed (the character makes to light his pipe from a nearby torch as a subterfuge). That's not much to work with, given the plethora of traits available.

The rules also don't mention what one would assume is another perfectly reasonable use of a trait - to lower the difficulty of a task or test. Logically, if a trait can give an automatic success in one situation, one would assume it could lower the difficulty of a task in another? It seems an acceptable use of a trait to me, but it's not one of the available options in the rules.

Then there are the various Cultural Blessings, which seem vary similar to traits but have specific effects that traits don't have, such as allowing the player to roll the Feat die twice and pick the best result.

Since ultimately it's our game, I think Loremasters should be free to interpret exactly what the effect of invoking a trait is in their own games. If automatic success seems too powerful for a given trait, then have it lower difficulty by one level instead (from TN 14 to TN 12 in most situations), or let the player roll two Feat die and pick the best result, just like some Cultural Blessings. I personally would prefer this to automatic success unless the task truly was inconsequential to the narrative and automatic success was in the interests of all in speeding up play.

In the example given by the OP, you could allow them to roll two Feat die when fighting Spiders, for instance, picking the best result. That way they would have more chance of inflicting a Piercing Blow than other characters (they know a Spider's vulnerabilities, such as the eyes or soft underbelly), and would also tend to do more damage.

That's not a Common Skill, I realise, but Enemy Lore seems more appropriate to fighting skills than Common Skills in my opinion. If you think that's too much of an advantage, then maybe allow two Feat die to be rolled on the Combat Advantage test instead - or just lower its TN.

When the result of a roll depends on the quality of success, I use traits as a Gandalf rune: they can guarantee an ordinary success, but the roll has to be made anyway to check the quality.

That's the way I interprete the rules, too.
However, yesterday I made a character with one of my players, and when I explained him the traits, I noticed that the automatic-success thing might become problematic with the more general traits like keen-eyed and hardy.

I keep wondering if I could come up with a house rule to use trait and flaws somewhat similar to aspects in the FATE system. That would basically mean that a player could invoke both traits and flaws of his character either in a way that give him an advantage (automatic success) or to put him in trouble (automatic failure or other complications - traits like Merciful, for example, where a character could create trouble for himself by sparing an enemy).
This would have to be tied into the hope/shadow economy somehow to make sense - e.g., if a player uses a trait to put his own character into trouble, than he loses a point of shadow, signfifying that he embraces his better impulses even towards his own disadvantage. If he invokes a flaw to his own disadvantage, then he might gain a point of hope - he can't lose shadow, because he embraced the shadow by his very action, but at least he can act on some of his lower impulses, thereby freeing some of the energy he normally uses to repress them (this justification is a little bit shaky, but I think gaining a point of hope for invoking flaws would be the best way to go in terms of game mechanics).
The other way round, you could use traits for auto-successes even with important tasks, but you would have to spend a point of hope; and you could also invoke flaws to give you an advantage (at doing a violent deed, at lying or stealing), but that would gain you a point if shadow.

That way:
A disadvantagous use of a trait (lose one shadow) would offset an advantagous use of a flaw (gain one shadow);
A disadvantagous use of a flaw (gain one hope) would offset an advantagous use of a trait (lose one hope)

That way, instead of taking outright control of a PC (a concept which I don't like at all), the LM could make an offer to a player: "how about if you behave according to your flaw in this situation? That would gain you a point of hope." or also: "How about if you behave merciful in this situation, as your trait suggests? You would lose a point of shadow." The player than would be free to refuse the offer (However, you could use another element of FATE: If the LM asks you to act according to your characters flaw or trait, you may refuse, but you have to pay for it by losing a point of hope or gaining a point of shadow, respectively).

This would change the hope/shadow-economy, however. E.g., you could try and keep your shadow score very low by repeatedly acting according to your traits, but at your own disadvantage. or, if you already have some flaws, you could try to keep hope above shadow by playing them out to your disadvantage.

However, to justify this use of traits and flaws, disadvantages would have to be severe: A disadvantage would mean that you lose a fight or totally botch an important encounter.

I don't know if this would work or if it would break the game, but I would certainly like to try it - I like it because, as in FATE, it gives you positive incentive to play both the light and the dark sides of your character (instead of having the LM take your character away from you to play his dark side).

Ouch, my head hurts! I would have trouble remembering that. I'd be thinking, do I gain 1 hope or lose 1 shadow here? I can see what you are getting at though, and it's a nice idea to encourage good roleplaying, if you can figure out how to remember it.

I am also not sure it would be clear-cut whether use of a trait/flaw was advantageous or disadvantageous in some circumstances.

[EDIT]
I am kind of warming to this idea now, after some more thought. It would make it a bit easier to invoke a lot of traits. For instance, if you have the "Tall" trait, you could have your character knock himself out on an overhanging branch or beam at some inconvenient moment to lose 1 point of Shadow. It would give lots of opportunities for introducing comic moments in the game, as long as it wasn't abused too much.

By the way, I like Yusei's suggestion to treat an auto-success like the Gandalf rune - i.e. you still roll Success dice for Degree of Success. That's something I can easily remember and which makes a lot of sense.

So wait, is auto-success too powerful, or does it need to be enhanced? I'm getting confused.

I think it could be too powerful in some situations. That's why I think the rules should have allowed for things like lowering the TN, or rolling two Feat die and picking the best result.

Mmmm. I think this: Automatic success using Trait is always an ordinary success.

So, players may choose between taking his 100% ordinary success or risking a roll to have something better. It's fun, strategic and implies a decision (relevant, sometimes).

Then, a player with low expectations of success (i.e. zero or low rank in skill) maybe will choose automatic success (with applicable trait) instead of rolling dice. And viceversa.

Anyway, abusing traits is always a problem, that groups must manage as a whole. As suggested here.

That's how we've been playing it. The two issues I have so far have been: using Traits in Encounters bypasses the Tolerance system, and characters with 3APs in a given skill category have no incentive not to invoke a Trait.

I don't see this as a bug. I like the idea that traits are really big in terms of defining a character. If a character is True-Spoken, then it shouldn't be up in the air to see if an NPC trusts his words. If a player can invoke a defining character trait in context of the narrative, then I'm satisfied.

There still is a risk-reward for encounters, though, even with 3 checks in a category. Degree of success matters in Encounters, and you lose that when invoking the trait.

I find that it is a little too complicated myself. These were just some thoughts, I think they have a long way to go before they can be implemented in the game ... most of it is lifted directly from fate, which has the really neat idea behind it that as a LM, you don't want to demand good roleplaying, you simply encourage it by offering a very tangible, immediately usable reward, but leave the decision what to do totally to the player. That way, if a player decides not to roleplay his character traits in a certain situation, he doesn't need to feel that he's frowned upon as a "bad roleplayer", he simply foregos the chance to get a point of hope (or, in Fate, a Fate Point), and he is totally in his right to do so.
I'll see if I can find a better way to use such a mechanism in TOR, my initial idea really sounds a little awkward.